You claim that I said something I didn't as if it supports your argument
somehow, then when I point this out, you say it doesn't matter?

The original statement was that Trump backed down on his
Immigration policy.
I said no he didn't back down he wrote a new EO to get
around the courts.
you came back with;
On 03/20/2017 10:29 AM, Disaster Master wrote:
> No, he issued a new EO to try to eliminate the points in
> the first one that caused the problems.
Since you answered "No, he issued..."
The no was in relation to me saying he didn't back down.

No, *my* 'no' was obviously in relation to your claim that 'he did it to
get around the courts'.

Trump stated that the second immigration ban would be
written in such a way that the courts couldn't touch it.
Well they did. Now everybody has to wait and see how this
turns out.
The stay just gives the court time to sort this out. Maybe
the court will agree with Trump.

Yet another example of why children shouldn't engage in political
discussion without parental supervision.

IOf you want to get into a thread you need to post clearly
what you are referring to.

Sorry, it is not my job to try to engage my crystal ball and see what
silly error in reading/comprehension you will make next time.

You really can't back up your arguments.

That is because it is self-evident.

Only in your and some other minds.

From what has been shown by the voting population the
majority do not agree so it must not be self-evident

But, I'll agree to 'back up my argument' if you first answer a simple
question...
What makes you think that the enforcement of laws is not ultimately at
gunpoint?
Or asked another way, how do you think laws are supposed to be enforced?
By someone walking up to you and saying 'pretty please'?

But you did say that Trump should "Then push Congress to
have these kinds of powers REMOVED from potential Judicial
Review."

Yes I did, but that doesn't mean he can *make* them do it.

But you plainly implied that you wanted to see the
separation done away with.

No, you merely incorrectly inferred that from a very plainly worded
comment that could in no way be construed as such save by someone with
little to no logical reasoning capability.

You have to go to the original question on which it is
abased which you clearly did not.